Broads Authority - Broads Control Number

[JennyMorgan]

Hemsby, I don't suppose any of us have issues with the BA Rangers nor most of the staff for that matter. If you like watching paint dry and have an hour to spare I will happily explain it all to you. 

Re BA lunch breaks, the BA is a service provider, they are a first port of call for problems on the system. As was illustrated recently not all sinkings are emergencies but they can be a navigation issue. 

[ranworthbreeze]

I totally agree that there is nothing wrong with the Rangers of the Broads Authority and many of the staff at the sharp end for that matter.

Regards Alan

[marshman]

Hemsby Pie - you are now communicating with a privileged few!!  BA bashing and the support of  unsupportable fishes is seemingly the province of a few specialists, whilst others support the unsupportable to help balance the scales a bit!!

Your post is absolutely correct - but I guarantee the detractors will not see it that way!!! The sinking on Barton, if that is what Pete refers to, hardly turned out to be a navigation issue, especially as most could see the sail!!  I wonder how many so called emergency navigation issues cannot wait, on average half an hour!!! Let me guess....??

There is probably a little history over the whole BA issue, especially on here, which you  can only speculate about!! Or not!! Whatever the issues are, I promise you they are not especially illuminating - well not all of the time!!!

[ExMemberBobdog]

11 minutes ago, marshman said:

Hemsby Pie - you are now communicating with a privileged few!!  BA bashing and the support of  unsupportable fishes is seemingly the province of a few specialists, whilst others support the unsupportable to help balance the scales a bit!!

Would those be the scales on the fishes?

[marshman]

[JennyMorgan]

20 hours ago, marshman said:

Hemsby Pie - you are now communicating with a privileged few!!  BA bashing and the support of  unsupportable fishes is seemingly the province of a few specialists, whilst others support the unsupportable to help balance the scales a bit!!

Your post is absolutely correct - but I guarantee the detractors will not see it that way!!! The sinking on Barton, if that is what Pete refers to, hardly turned out to be a navigation issue, especially as most could see the sail!!  I wonder how many so called emergency navigation issues cannot wait, on average half an hour!!! Let me guess....??

There is probably a little history over the whole BA issue, especially on here, which you  can only speculate about!! Or not!! Whatever the issues are, I promise you they are not especially illuminating - well not all of the time!!!

Marsh, things are not all tickety-boo at Yare House, surely even you can see that?

[Poppy]

2 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Marsh, things are not all tickety-boo at Yare House, surely even you can see that?

 

2 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

Marsh, things are not all tickety-boo at Yare House, surely even you can see that?

Come on JM. You know that Marshy is the leading Internet apologist for the BA - here and "elsewhere ". I always read his posts with that in mind.

Bet he gets a personally signed Christmas card form all at Yare house

[JennyMorgan]

Do you think that he is actually . . . . . . . . . in person himself?

No, he can't be, at least he knows that wherries aren't built down in the West Country. 

Nice old boy though!

[ZimbiIV]

The BA is a suicidal organisation.

My reasoning.

Their sole reason for existence is to maintain the Broads! A man made area, if by returning them to nature ( by various means) they return to nature, silting, lack of upkeep, disregard for users, means they return to the original flat plains, then surely no need for an authority.

A few narrow rivers will remain requiring nothing but nature to maintain them, if you interfere in any form surely that is maintenance of a natural area.

Do we fill in the canals?

Remove the Thames barrier?

Empty the reservoirs?

Man has always adapted nature, I do NOT condone the destruction of natural areas BUT the broads is not a natural area, not that I mean natural development should be prevented BUT allowed to develop along with users requirements.

Without users there is, no need for upkeep, thus no income for a suicidal organisation.

Their main concern should be the UPKEEP the area (as per remit ).

The more they meddle, by lack, of action detracts from the attraction of the area as an SSTS (it's not).

Unless a great empire is in the building.

paul

Ps Why do they allow fishing (exploitation of nature)  and short term stays by sea toilet only boats (pollution).

 

[marshman]

Poppy - you know, or you should by now, that my apologist stance here and elsewhere is merely to counteract the "anti" stance of others!!! Every argument has two sides and readers are entitled to see opposing views - you can then take your pick!!

And in my own defence, there are very few public bodies to which most of the criticisms levied against the BA cannot be applied either - councils, NHS and many others!!

And oh, the BA have nothing to do with fishing - its the EA you should be directing those comments to. Typical piece, IMHO, of the type of misinformation promulgated! And what have sub surface sewage treatment systems got to do with the issue?? Thats Anglian Water methinks!!

[SPEEDTRIPLE]

On 07/08/2016 at 11:25 AM, Poppy said:

Why on earth did I mention the 'Stag Boats' ?

I really wished for a discussion on the appropriateness of a contact number for the Broads river inspectors being unavailable at lunchtime in the height of the season  !

 

Hi Poppy, i think the problem is that people on here are very passionate about the peace and tranquility of a (usually normal) broads holiday, and the very moment this sort of occurance is mentioned, it  brings out the usual critisism of such parties, and i`m no exception, as i`ve made my opinions quite clear regarding this sort of behaviour, and been ridiculed for it. Possibly they think it more important to complain about the increasing numbers of antisocial behaviour, as this is what they, or should i say "we" see or even are subject to.  One thing is clear, these sort of incidents do arouse peoples emotions, and the Broads control SHOULD as you say, be manned at all normal hours, having sufficient staff to cover a full day while still adhearing to strict rule on hours and break times.

 

[Guest]

Anyone who has frequented the Broads forums for any length of time will be well aware that there are a few forum members who are relentlessly opposed to the BA as well as some who are unremittingly supportive. I find both stances slightly uncomfortable, as generally the truth tends to lie somewhere between opposites. Very few people, or organisations, are entirely bad. Or good. So I tend to view the prenouncements of those who espouse the extremes with a certain amount of caution, whilst recognising that there is often a nugget of truth in there. This often leaves me confused and uncertain but hey, that's life. 

[marshman]

But Speedtriple, the emergency services themselves have responded by saying that the point in question was an issue for either the Coastguard or the Police, so why cannot a reporting wait 1/2 hour? As was stated quite clearly the BA is not an emergency service!!

And Spider ,you are probably right!! Balance has to be maintainred!!!

[ExMemberBobdog]

I'm confused by the bizarre rant about 'returning the Broads to nature' above.  If the suggestion is that the BA wants to see some such kind of reversion, it couldn't be more wrong.

I've several times been to sessions/activities organised by the BA's Education Officer, who works with children and adults to help them explore and understand the special nature of the Broads.  Over and again the point is made by him that the Broads exist because of human activity, and that the Broads landscape is a managed landscape.  He makes the point that if we fail to maintain it then a process of 'succession' will take place, with the reedbeds in due course replaced by woodland, and that this would be disastrous for the current ecology; the plants and wildlife that are unique to this area.

The problem that exists is that many of the traditional commercial activities (reedcutting, eel fishing, grazing of marshland and many more) that sustained the Broads landscape have declined, activities that employed large numbers of people, activities that are labour intensive.  

BA volunteers ( and others, for example 'Broadsword') do spend many hours and days trying to preserve the traditional landscape; every winter cutting down invasive trees, clearing scrub, replanting reed and much, much more - local people who make a real commitment to caring for their local environment (and in the process, benefiting others - sailors for example, by and large, would like to see most riverside trees gone).  It's the BA that facilitates this work; providing leadership through the Rangers, transport and tools for the volunteers to use.

I often wonder if some people put as much energy into caring for this wonderful and special place as they do in moaning about the BA how much more could be achieved?

Of course the BA is far from perfect, who amongst us is?  Of course they make mistakes.  But the constant barrage of bile achieves nothing and denigrates the truly hard work being done by so many (often unseen - a lot of the work goes on during the winter when so many of you are absent from this place).

[marshman]

Bobdog - you bothered to reply in detail to that observation - I didn't!!

For what itis worth I was a bit lost too ,as you, and it contained some factual inaccuracies. Worth banging on about - probably not!!!!

[JennyMorgan]

Bob, the Authority's practical work is generally held in reasonably high esteem by most of us folk along the river-bank. Certainly the general workforce do a grand job and deserve whatever praise comes their way. 

However, be wary. It is not so long ago that those at the sharp end latched onto the fact that much of the Broads is historically and largely an 'industrial' landscape, man-made with peat diggings and dykes etc. cut for wherries, thus, so it was argued, the right of navigation was not sacrosanct as the Broads is not a natural waterway, which is not entirely true. That line of thought was not upheld in Parliament but it does give an insight into the inner workings of the man at the top. How do I know? I was there and listened to the utterings from on high. The devious manner in which we have been lumbered with the national park tag-line is another clear clue as to the inner workings. Praise where praise is due but had all of the Broads Bill been incorporated into the Broads Act then we would have been severely limited as to where we could rightfully roam in our boats. I haven't 'liked' Paul's posting because there are some questionable statements, in my opinion, but there is some real meat on the bone, so to speak. Really it's a case of us keeping on our toes.

The concept of the Broads Authoriy was spot on, in my opinion, however I really do think that many of those involved with its creation, such as my father, must be turning in their graves right now at the sometimes devious and questionable management style that we now witness.

 

[Vaughan]

This has become a very good conversation with valid contributions by all sides.

I am sure I can speak for all of us in saying that there is no criticism here of the BA workforce who are all out there getting their hands dirty. They do and always have done, an excellent job.

As far as they are allowed to. Some criticise the BA for what appears sometimes to be mis-guided senior management decisions, some of which are felt by many to be actually led by prejudice, a hidden agenda and even naked personal spite. I refer, of course, to Jenners Basin.

They also leave themselves open to it in ridiculous farces such as a phone box in a village.

My own criticism goes back further, to when they sat back and allowed the farming lobby to devastate great swathes of the ancient water meadows of my memory to create deep drainage and "flood protection" for the exploitation of arable crops. At the same time thus destroying the hydraulic balance which had kept the Broads at manageable flood levels for hundreds of years.

There is also their deliberate encouragement of the closure of small boatyard businesses in the 80s. An error which has resulted in the erosion of the infrastructure of service facilities from which we all now suffer and of course, a serious decline in tourist revenue.

[marshman]

Hi Vaughan - I agree totally with the second part of your post concerning the farmers who have for their greed, ruined vast swathes of marsh and indeed natural flood defences. I am sure you are right that the BA could have prevented it, but not quite sure how this could , or should have, been achieved??

Large landowners and that includes some farmers just seem to forget that they are guardians of this precious landscape but sadly they first objective seems to line their trouser pockets - that last comment is not to say they all do, but certainly a largish proportion seem to

[JennyMorgan]

I don't doubt that the Authority approved closure of yards in the late 70's and early 80's had the intention of reducing hireboat numbers on the Broads. In my mind the early and biggest casualties were Wroxham and Hoveton followed closely by Oulton Broad. Today the Southern Broads is the hardest hit casualty, a shadow of days gone by, now all but deserted by the majority of hire boats.

[Vaughan]

9 hours ago, marshman said:

I am sure you are right that the BA could have prevented it, but not quite sure how this could , or should have, been achieved??

Surely if they didn't want it, they shouldn't have granted planning permission.

I regard deep-dyke drainage as commercial exploitation of the landscape, which hardly sits right with the ethos of a National Park. Just the same as the digging of gravel on Whitlingham marshes and Crown Point. This was blatant commercial exploitation of (a) ancient marsh wetland and (b) ancient re-claimed water meadow but the BA allowed it and are now pleased to promote it as a "Broad". 

Conservation area, innit?

[ExMemberBobdog]

17 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Just the same as the digging of gravel on Whitlingham marshes ... but the BA allowed it.

Er, just a thought ... wasn't it Norfolk County Council who gave planning permission for the gravel extraction at Whitlingham, in 1988, before the Broads Authority was given planning authority powers after the 1989 Broads Act?  But hey, lets not have the facts interfere with a good old bit of BA bashing, eh?

[Vaughan]

Well, here's how I see it. These two ecologically sensitive pieces of landscape fell within the area of jurisdiction of the BA so they must have been consulted on this even if they didn't actually have the planning power at the time. We all know how the smallest objection from a local nowadays, can stop a planning application.

So in my opinion, as this extraction was granted, the BA can't have objected to it. They must have allowed it.

[Maxwellian]

Just back from two lovely weeks on theBroads. We saw a few all male parties with  flags flying but never came across any trouble. All well behaved when we were close. 

[JennyMorgan]

My understanding of the facts is that the Authority did have planning powers, powers which they delegated to LPAs on the ground. Whitlingham was created as a 'Broad' in order to extract aggregate for road building and, at the time, was seen as a win-win situation, only it didn't become a navigable Broad in the expected sense. In other words we were sold a pup. Not sure that we can blame the Authority entirely for Whitlingham Lake nevertheless it did happen on their watch. Back then there were well documented calls for the creation of new Broads, such as within the Bure Loop, as a means of lessening the pressure on the waterways. I've got to say it, we were all to blame, we didn't object and actually I always thought the Authority actually thought it was doing what it thought the public wanted. It is only in hindsight that we realize that many of us were wrong.

As for the deep dyke drainage, yes, that was disgraceful. Thank goodness outside agencies called a halt when Halvergate Marshes were threatened. 

[marshman]

Vaughan - much as I oft agree with you, the wrecking of acres of marshland is well outside the BA's jurisdiction and silly things like planning permission are irrelevant i am afraid!! Farmers were, and still are a law unto themselves as far as p/p is concerned and looking at the time horizon, it was all well well before anyone ever dreamt up the BA !!

Recently subsidy payment and incentive payment scheme changes means that these areas are still under threat and I believe you would find if you ask the question the BA are well aware of these new threats but can do sod all about it!! The farmers can, but as always it is their pockets they think of first and sod the rest of you and traditional landscapes!!